Category: Vaccines

Remarkably, zero of the 561 unvaccinated patients in the study had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to 0.063% of the (partially and fully) vaccinated. The implications of these results for the net public health effects of whole-population vaccination and with respect for informed consent on human health are compelling. Our results give agency to calls for research conducted by individuals who are independent of any funding sources related to the vaccine industry. While the low rates of developmental disorders prevented sufficiently powered hypothesis testing, it is notable that the overall rate of autism spectrum disorder (0.84%) in the cohort is half that of the US national rate (1.69%). The practice-wide rate of ADHD was roughly half of the national rate. The data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated.

Vaccines are widely regarded as safe and effective within the medical community and are an integral part of the current American medical system. While the benefits of vaccination have been estimated in numerous studies, negative and nonspecific impact of vaccines on human health have not been well studied. Most recently, it has been determined [1,2] that variation exists in individual responses to vaccines, that differences exist in the safety profile of live and inactivated vaccines, and that simultaneous administration of live and inactivated vaccines may be associated with poor outcomes. Studies have not been published that report on the total outcomes from vaccinations, or the increase or decrease in total infections in vaccinated individuals.

A few independent (non-CDC) studies do exist that have compared outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. A small survey study of 415 families with homeschooled children by Mawson et al., 2017 [9] that compared vaccinated with completely unvaccinated children reported increased risk of many diagnoses among the vaccinated children including (condition, fold-increase): allergic rhinitis (30.1), learning disabilities (5.2), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (4.2), autism (4.2), neurodevelopmental disorders (3.7), eczema (2.9), and chronic illness (2.4). The increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders appeared to be higher in cases of preterm births. A study from Germany (Schmitz et al., 2011) [10] reported no increases in adverse outcomes other than atopy.

We performed a retrospective analysis spanning ten years of pediatric practice focused on patients with variable vaccination born into a practice, presenting a unique opportunity to study the effects of variable vaccination on outcomes. The average total incidence of billed office visits per outcome related to the outcomes were compared across groups (Relative Incidence of Office Visit (RIOV)). RIOV is shown to be more powerful than odds ratio of diagnoses. Full cohort, cumulative incidence analyses, matched for days of care, and matched for family history analyses were conducted across quantiles of vaccine uptake. Increased office visits related to many diagnoses were robust to days-of-care-matched analyses, family history, gender block, age block, and false discovery risk. Many outcomes had high RIOV odds ratios after matching for days-of-care (e.g., anemia (6.334), asthma (3.496), allergic rhinitis (6.479), and sinusitis (3.529), all significant under the Z-test). Developmental disorders were determined to be difficult to study due to extremely low prevalence in the practice, potentially attributable to high rates of vaccine cessation upon adverse events and family history of autoimmunity.

http://ipaknowledge.org/ipak-vaxxed-v-unvaxxed-study.php

Abstract: Vaccination is a medical intervention that comes with a risk for some people. In the expression of infectious diseases, it is known that the pathogen alone does not cause disease: it is a combination of the pathogen, environment, and genetic factors that determines expression and severity of the disease in individuals. In 1960 Macfarlane Burnet, Nobel Prize laureate for immunology, stated that genetics, nutrition, psychological and environmental factors may play a more important role in resistance to disease than the assumed benefits of artificial immunity induced by vaccination. He considered that genetic deterioration of the population may be a consequence of universal mass vaccination and he postulated that in the long-term vaccination may be against the best interests of the state. The current belief that much of the burden of infectious diseases can be alleviated if every child, in every geographical location, has access to multiple vaccines, does not consider the influence of genetics and environment on the health of populations. The historical record shows that deaths and illnesses to infectious diseases fell due to public health reforms – and prior to the introduction of most vaccines. Since 1990 there has been a 5-fold increase in chronic illness in children in developed countries and an exponential increase in autism that correlates directly with the expansion of government vaccination programs. Many individuals are genetically predisposed to the chronic illnesses that are increasing in the population and since 1995 governments have not used mortality or morbidity to assess outcomes of vaccination programs.
Human health can be protected in government policies if the precautionary principle is used in the correct format that puts the onus of proof of harmlessness on the government and pharmaceutical industry, and not the general public. This has not been done in current vaccination programs and we cannot rule out the possibility that the increased use of vaccines is destroying the genetic fabric of society as MacFarlane Burnet postulated.

Wilyman, J. Misapplication of the Precautionary Principle has Misplaced the Burden of Proof of Vaccine Safety. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law Nov 2020 2:23-34.

https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_cb9f1c190ed547198bc085074466aaea.pdf

Pfizer’s new COVID-19 Vaccine for which it claims a 90 percent success rate (less than the survival rate for the actual virus ironically which is over 98 percent) also has some disturbing ingredients.

Children’s Health Defense explained in an August 6th article,

“mRNA vaccines undergoing Covid-19 clinical trials, including the Moderna vaccine, rely on a nanoparticle-based “carrier system” containing a synthetic chemical called polyethylene glycol (PEG).”

CHD goes on to explain:

“The use of PEG in drugs and vaccines is increasingly controversial due to the well-documented incidence of adverse PEG-related immune reactions, including life-threatening anaphylaxis. Roughly seven in ten Americans may already be sensitized to PEG, which may result in reduced efficacy of the vaccine and an increase in adverse side effects. If a PEG-containing mRNA vaccine for Covid-19 gains FDA approval, the uptick in exposure to PEG will be unprecedented—and potentially disastrous. Moderna documents and publications indicate that the company is well aware of safety risks associated with PEG and other aspects of its mRNA technology but is more concerned with its bottom line.”

This is the reason why it must be kept at a temperature of -70 degrees. Colder that the Antarctic otherwise it is, in Pfizer’s own words, “ineffective.”

This is apart from the inclusion of foetus material from living animals, something that would be of concern to vegetarians and vegans not to mention various religious groups and philosophies.

CHD goes on to say, “LNPs “encapsulate the mRNA constructs to protect them from degradation and promote cellular uptake” and, additionally, rev up the immune system (a property that vaccine scientists tamely describe as LNPs’ “inherent adjuvant properties”)”

This is a polite way of saying that LNPs are adjuvants. This means they are designed to stimulate hyper-inflammatory responses in human beings in an effort to induce the creation of antibodies that allow the manufacturer to claim high “effectiveness” rates, despite those adjuvants causing severe adverse reactions (for which the company cannot be sued by the way). In fact according to recent vaccine trials conducted by Moderna, 100% of human subjects in the high-dose vaccine trial group experienced adverse reactions. That means ALL. Not some. ALL

Be very careful what you inject into your body.

https://www.seetvnews.com/post/more-disturbing-news-on-covid-vaccines

Debi Leeper writes: “I spent time with one of Australia’s top lead cancer researchers. They said “it’s very well known vaccines cause cancers”.

There many other things that contribute to the development of cancers however when you look at the ingredients in those injectable products it is easy to see why.

Finish reading:

How to confuse / mislead people with statistics…

https://www.statisticshowto.com/calculate-relative-risk/

Feel free to circulate or use for your self

Dear Mr Joyce,

I am very concerned as a long term Qantas flier, a long term advocate of Qantas and health researcher over your claims to have a “Vaccine Passport”. Clearly you have received some poor information not based on the science and have made a very rash and potentially damaging and dangerous decision.

Firstly, this vaccine has been pushed and rushed at “Warp Speed”, without proper or long-term testing, and the high risks to the public that such a rushed medication carries. The vaccine touted for use is an RNA (genetically) based vaccine, something that has never ever been released to the public before. It is experimental. The medium and long-term effects of this gene-altering vaccine on our bodies is completely unknown.

Secondly, the vaccine does not stop people from carrying the disease nor does it stop the spread. It is designed to stop a person catching the illness. Despite 50 years of flu vaccine it still goes around every year as do all respiratory viruses and they mutate as this virus is already doing and it continues to go around. A person who has multiple vaccines for Covid 19 can still carry the virus and in fact get sick and die from the virus. Let me make it plainer. A substantial body of research has shown that having health professionals vaccinated did not under any circumstances alter the course or spread of the flu virus.

Thirdly, the vast majority of the claims about the effectiveness of the vaccines are both embellished and using statistics that you are unfamiliar with. According to comments published in the British Medical Journal last week (see the link below) the vaccine is not very effective. While the information from Pfizer’s looks impressive when you do the real numbers the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4% (0.0043-0.0004=0.0039). The Number Needed To Vaccinate (NNTV) = 256 (1/0.0039), which means that to prevent just 1 Covid-19 case 256 individuals must get the vaccine; the other 255 individuals derive no benefit, but are subject to vaccine adverse effects. And this is to do with cases not even death. It will be even less effective for death. Probably around 1 in 4000 like the flu vaccine. These are facts in the scientific journals which I can provide any time and in fact publish them regularly on my social media groups.

Finally, catching the illness is not the problem it is the major health conditions that occur in a relatively small group in our society that is most susceptible that is the problem. After reviewing hundreds of papers the most susceptible group, other than those which severe medical conditions, are those over 75 with, according to the US Centre For Disease Control, 2.5 comorbidities. That is the elderly who are already very sick and who in most cases are not going to be flying anyway. That is why the majority of deaths in Australia and around the world have ben in elderly care (not a good word) facilities. For the vast majority of the population it is a mild illness with fewer complications than the annual flu. This is substantiated in the studies and multiple health professionals including an official statement by the Chief Health Officer of NSW Dr Kerry Chant that this is “a mild illness”.

On a logistic note will the passport be for the current version of the Covid 19 virus or the last years virus which effectively is what the flu vaccine is? You will need multiple passports for each travel people do.

While Australia is currently free from Covid 19 the vaccine will not prevent the spread once the borders open to international travel. This is well recognised in the scientific and health community.

Clearly you have just relied on very poor information and made a very damaging and dangerous comment. I would suggest before this goes any further you consult the science. I have reviewed hundreds of studies on the topic and derive no gain or support from my information. Unlike the people selling you your information I am happy to provide you with free unadulterated independent information, which by the way is supported by a large portion of the community that you think you are protecting.

I have no doubt that you made your comment with the best intentions. You just relied on very poor information. In the best interest of Qantas and Australians I seriously suggest you review your situation and make a public retraction very soon.

Peter Dingle PhD

Here is a link you can follow https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4347/rr-4

Covid-19 vaccine candidate is unimpressive: NNTV is around 256

It is not enough to merely agree on this. We, every single one of us, needs to make our voice herard if we are to retain our freedoms!
Email the Qantas CEO at: alanjoyce@qantas.com.au
Post on the facebook fan page at facebook.com/Qantas
Message Qantas support at: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/support/contact-us/customer-care-feedback-form.html?int_cam=contact-us-feedback

This is about the level of scientific credibility that should be assigned to it. Nah, on second thoughts, idol worship does not harm your children anywhere near as much as vaccines do.

If you do not believe this whole COVID response is a complete and utter plandemic/scam, please read again the text in this image and the previous article: http://www.tomgrimshaw.com/tomsblog/?p=30703

Dr. Roger Hodkinson, Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons committee in Ottawa, CEO of a large private medical laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta and Chairman of a Medical Biotechnology company SELLING THE COVID-19 TEST:

“There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspected public. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. This is nothing more than a bad flu season. It’s politics playing medicine and that’s a very dangerous game.

There is no action needed….Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence whatsoever they are even effective. It is utterly ridiculous seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people walking around like lemmings obeying without any evidence. Social distancing is also useless…..

Positive testing results do NOT indicate clinical infection. It is simply driving public hysteria and ALL testing should STOP immediately….using the province’s own statistics the risk of death under 65 is 1 in 300,000. The scale of the response is utterly ridiculous…all kinds of business closures, suicides …. you’re being led down the garden path.”